Gateway to limitless being

[neti neti]

Thanks for the explanation. So is what you (both) are saying is that you see emptiness as a subset of consciousness? Sort of like the totally pure and clear version/layer/mist of consciousness?

 

And, hence if you push mental consciousness to the extreme, it becomes totally pure? Like (as the guru link states) if you push your hatred/anger for someone to the max you will realize the totally pure and clear version of consciousness? Become enlightened?

 

If I may, the perceived emptiness is of the nature of pure awareness. That 'pure object-less consciousness' doesn't become, it is that already. Nothing to push... clarity is inherent. In being that, all else melts away. There are no distinctions existing apart from those one may superimpose upon it, since nothing is separate from consciousness; not you, not me, not the guru.

 

Although I would say it all simply happens without any assumed volition, if the guru appears to embody that all-pervading potentiality, he still only embodies it from within the consciousness bubble.

 

In this pure awareness there's no "I", and so one is free to just be... be the emptiness, be the bad guy, be the hero, etc. And yet there indeed remains an "I" aware of being awareness. The experiencer of awareness persists. Who is aware of awareness? Do you see? Thus while 'oneness' may be the quintessence of Advaita, Reality lies beyond oneness and any other perceptual state... There is no Reality.

 

In my experience(which is non-existent), enlightenment proper is total dissolution or 'liberation from the "I"'. For "others", a newly 'liberated "I"' suffices. As awareness, awareness itself is revealed to be temporal. When awareness melts away... "That thou art"

[Jeff]

Emptiness is Pure Objectless Consciousness.

I don't suggest that bit about hatred/anger

 

There is a story in India about something like this though. The author of the Epic Ramayana, was a sage named Valmiki. Before he became a sage, he was a notorious murderous robber named Ratnakar.  He had an encounter with a traveling sage in his forest. He would attack travelers passing through the forest he lived in, kill them, and steal their possessions. 

 

When he went to attack the traveling sage, the sage stopped him and asked - "Before you kill me, can you answer my one question?"

Ratnakar responded "What?"

Sage "Can you tell me why you're doing this? Killing people and stealing their belongings?"

Ratnakar replied "I have to feed my wife and kids...I have to feed my aging parents. If I don't do this, we will all starve to death!"

Sage said "Can you do one thing? Can you go ask your wife and kids and your other dependents, if they will share the bad karma you are earning by killing and looting? I promise you I'll stay right here until you return. Then you can kill me and steal my meager possessions"

Ratnakar was mystified. He ran home and asked each of his dependents whether they'd share his negative karma. Each replied that they didn't think they would have to share his bad karma, because he was doing his duty to provide for them. How he did it was entirely his own choice!

 

He ran back to sage with a dejected look on his face. He said "I am at a loss for words. I had thought my family, whom I love and provide for would be willing to share some of my sins...but they refused!"

 

And as he sat in front of the sage, he broke down and cried at the outrage he felt by the betrayal of his loved ones. 

 

He asked the sage "If this is the outcome of my murdering and stealing, how do I make amends?"

The sage replied - "You have to repent!"

Ratnakar said - "How?"

Sage said - "Think of a deity you love dearly and just chant his or her name in total devotion..."

Ratnakar replied "I've never prayed to any deity and my heart is full of anger and sorrow right now...I can't make room for devotion."

Sage asked "Then what do you know?" 

Ratnakar replied "The only thing I know is to kill...so I know death...Mara"

Sage said "Okay then..sit here under this tree and keep chanting Mara..mara...mara...don't get up to eat, sleep, drink...etc...until I come back"

Ratnakar was a man of very strong will...he sat down and started chanting "Mara...mara..."

 

The sage went about his business and walked out of the forest.

 

Seven years went by and the sage was passing through through the forest again. He saw there were animals and birds flocking around a huge anthill that had formed around a tree. There was a very peaceful and serene energy around the place. He immediately knew that it was the dreadful Ratnakar who was there. He walked up to the Anthill and slowly dug Ratnakar out.

 

Upon being touched by the sage, Ratnakar came out of his meditation and seeing the sage, fell at his feet in joy and gratitude.

 

He asked the sage "how long has it been since I've been meditating?"

The sage replied "It has been at least 7 years..."

 

The sage could tell that there was no vestige of Ratnakar, the dreaded murderer left in the man. He renamed him Valmiki, because he was "born again" from an anthill. 

 

Valmiki had to just channelize his anger and sorrow into a single-minded task with his eyes closed and senses turned inward. He did pratyahara, dharana and dhyana. Soon he entered samadhi where he remained until the Sage came and woke him up. So his anger and sorrow became the seed for his enlightenment. The word "Mara" (kill) had become "Rama" (The name of God).

I very much like your story. But, he did not carry his anger to the extreme. In your story, he realized the futility of such things and let it go... he simply walked away from it... and dropped his anger.

 

In our discussion, I would argue that with stepping away from the extreme, he refound his balance and the natural peace inside (or underneath). IMHO, your story seems to disprove your own position. To be consistent with your position, would he not instead become the worlds greatest ever murderer and thief, pushing it to the limit and then becoming enlightened from it. Exactly like your previous 100% yang example leading to perfect consciousness?

[dwai]

I very much like your story. But, he did not carry his anger to the extreme. In your story, he realized the futility of such things and let it go... he simply walked away from it... and dropped his anger.

 

In our discussion, I would argue that with stepping away from the extreme, he refound his balance and the natural peace inside (or underneath). IMHO, your story seems to disprove your own position. To be consistent with your position, would he not instead become the worlds greatest ever murderer and thief, pushing it to the limit and then becoming enlightened from it. Exactly like your previous 100% yang example leading to perfect consciousness?

 

I'd like to think that his anger and sorrow turned into emptiness...In the same way that yang turns into yin naturally...

may be...who knows?

 

Emperor Ashoka...the great Buddhist ruler of Ancient India was a blood-thirsty war-mongerer. His blood-lust and lust-for-power became compassion eventually and he converted to Buddhism and preached the Dhamma in repentance for the rest of his life.

[Jeff]

If I may, the perceived emptiness is of the nature of pure awareness. That 'pure object-less consciousness' doesn't become, it is that already. Nothing to push... clarity is inherent. In being that, all else melts away. There are no distinctions existing apart from those one may superimpose upon it, since nothing is separate from consciousness; not you, not me, not the guru.

 

Although I would say it all simply happens without any assumed volition, if the guru appears to embody that all-pervading potentiality, he still only embodies it from within the consciousness bubble.

 

In this pure awareness there's no "I", and so one is free to just be... be the emptiness, be the bad guy, be the hero, etc. And yet there indeed remains an "I" aware of being awareness. The experiencer of awareness persists. Who is aware of awareness? Do you see? Thus while 'oneness' may be the quintessence of Advaita, Reality lies beyond oneness and any other perceptual state... There is no Reality.

 

In my experience(which is non-existent), enlightenment proper is total dissolution or 'liberation from the "I"'. For "others", a newly 'liberated "I"' suffices. As awareness, awareness itself is revealed to be temporal. When awareness melts away... "That thou art"

Thanks for your response. My points with the questions were really more about the possible methodology around realization. The guru's (and I think Dwai's) premise that 100% yang energy is an effective path.

 

Also, I think part of the challenge is that there are a lot of words above where we may have very different definitions (like our emptiness discussion). So if you don't mind, a few questions...

 

Are you saying there is nothing but consciousness? Or is there something beyond consciousness?

 

Is oneness being all of consciousness? Or is oneness something else?

 

Is awareness just a subset of consciousness that is sort of deluded in thinking itself "separate"? Or is awareness somehow separate or different than consciousness?

[Jeff]

I'd like to think that his anger and sorrow turned into emptiness...In the same way that yang turns into yin naturally...

may be...who knows?

 

Emperor Ashoka...the great Buddhist ruler of Ancient India was a blood-thirsty war-mongerer. His blood-lust and lust-for-power became compassion eventually and he converted to Buddhism and preached the Dhamma in repentance for the rest of his life.

Thank you. Then we again seem to have some different understanding of the word emptiness. To me, emptiness is not a "thing" that something can transmute into. What you are describing to me, is more like high levels of yang becoming unstable and just rebalancing. The sage pointed out the issue, the killer noticed and accepted it. With the acceptance, he let it all go. With letting it go, he became more "yin" (in our discussion). With the now balancing nature, nature itself aligned with him, and all the birds and animals (nature) wanted to hang with him.

 

With your emperor example... is it not another example of someone pushing one sidedness (your ultimate yang) and realizing the futility of it? That it didn't work? Also, in Buddhism, when you (drop anger and desire) find the balance (or middle way), compassion naturally radiates...

[Pilgrim]

Thanks for your response. My points with the questions were really more about the possible methodology around realization. The guru's (and I think Dwai's) premise that 100% yang energy is an effective path.

 

Also, I think part of the challenge is that there are a lot of words above where we may have very different definitions (like our emptiness discussion). So if you don't mind, a few questions...

 

Are you saying there is nothing but consciousness? Or is there something beyond consciousness?

 

Is oneness being all of consciousness? Or is oneness something else?

 

Is awareness just a subset of consciousness that is sort of deluded in thinking itself "separate"? Or is awareness somehow separate or different than consciousness?

What are your answers to these questions Jeff?

1. Is there nothing but consciousness? Or is there something beyond consciousness?
2. Is oneness being all of consciousness? Or is oneness something else?
3. Is awareness just a subset of consciousness that is sort of deluded in thinking itself "separate"? Or is awareness somehow separate or different than consciousness?

[dwai]

Thank you. Then we again seem to have some different understanding of the word emptiness. To me, emptiness is not a "thing" that something can transmute into. What you are describing to me, is more like high levels of yang becoming unstable and just rebalancing. The sage pointed out the issue, the killer noticed and accepted it. With the acceptance, he let it all go. With letting it go, he became more "yin" (in our discussion). With the now balancing nature, nature itself aligned with him, and all the birds and animals (nature) wanted to hang with him.

 

With your emperor example... is it not another example of someone pushing one sidedness (your ultimate yang) and realizing the futility of it? That it didn't work? Also, in Buddhism, when you (drop anger and desire) find the balance (or middle way), compassion naturally radiates...

 

My point is that the "realization of the futility of it" is a natural process. It is the natural outcome of letting something expand infinitely in the human context (like emotion, feeling, etc etc). We already know that's how it is for energy...so why is consciousness exempt from this process? After all, consciousness and energy are non-different...

Edited January 26, 2017 by dwai

[Jeff]

My point is that the "realization of the futility of it" is a natural process. It is the natural outcome of letting something expand infinitely in the human context (like emotion, feeling, etc etc). We already know that's how it is for energy...so why is consciousness exempt from this process? After all, consciousness and energy are non-different...

I totally agree that consciousness and energy are "non-different". And we seem to agree the importance of the "realization of the futility point". Does that also mean that we agree that one needs to let stuff (like anger) go? Or can you still be a 100% angry emotional person and be "realized"?

[neti neti]

On 1/26/2017 at 4:38 PM, Jeff said:

Thanks for your response. My points with the questions were really more about the possible methodology around realization. The guru's (and I think Dwai's) premise that 100% yang energy is an effective path.

 

Also, I think part of the challenge is that there are a lot of words above where we may have very different definitions (like our emptiness discussion). So if you don't mind, a few questions...

 

1) Are you saying there is nothing but consciousness? Or is there something beyond consciousness?

 

2) Is oneness being all of consciousness? Or is oneness something else?

 

3) Is awareness just a subset of consciousness that is sort of deluded in thinking itself "separate"? Or is awareness somehow separate or different than consciousness?

 

Understood. But have you considered that, as a means to realization, negation in practice can be as 100% yang as it is yin?

 

By what standard of measure is effectiveness to be gauged? By the quality of experience, the sensation of freedom, its duration? What can be said of efforts once experience comes, and then goes? How much pain and suffering must one deliberately cause before the entire world is seen to be a mere stage of characters? How much ignorance to adhere to before knowledge illuminates? What was offered was that freedom from all experience can be none other than freedom itself. Only then can one be free to truly experience.

 

After all, how can a non-existent "I" long for the fulfillment of a non-existent "realization"? All methodologies really are seen to be comical when reduced to what one truly is. I'm certain a fair amount of sages/seers/realized souls would be in agreement that all this is merely entertainment.

 

Concentrated earnestness for and 'attainment' of realization may indeed come about through either introspection or extroversion, but can also arise spontaneously without any apparent cause. Such is this grand play of consciousness showcasing its infinite forms. Therefore ultimately, there is no path, or method or way. You are It, without a You to be It. Words cannot describe it.

 

It can be as much fun pretending to be the villain as it is pretending anything can accelerate the process. There is no process. One can appear to dive headlong into the unknown, while another may appear to be dragged there kicking and screaming. We all appear to only do as we are led. Who is the doer?

 

1) Yes, nothing exists apart. As that which consciousness appears upon, you are beyond the notions of duality(and non-duality).

 

2) Yes, oneness is the realization of Self(or self-awareness) as the 'pure-objectless-consciousness', the ground of being.

 

3) No. As awareness, 'I am', but there is no 'I am -- this or that'.

I suppose the only exceptions to this would be : 'I am everything' or, 'I am nothing'.

Edited August 24, 2020 by neti neti

[dwai]

I totally agree that consciousness and energy are "non-different". And we seem to agree the importance of the "realization of the futility point". Does that also mean that we agree that one needs to let stuff (like anger) go? Or can you still be a 100% angry emotional person and be "realized"?

 

Of course we let go. But I think the "letting go" part is sort of tricky and some conditions need to arise (within the human mind-body construct) that'll trigger the releasing.

 

All I'm saying is, there might be something to the "expand anger to till it disappears" perspective. Would I do it? No. I'll probably get a heart attack and die...but then that could be considered a "realization" part...

[Jeff]

What are your answers to these questions Jeff?

 

• Is there nothing but consciousness? Or is there something beyond consciousness?
• Is oneness being all of consciousness? Or is oneness something else?
• Is awareness just a subset of consciousness that is sort of deluded in thinking itself "separate"? Or is awareness somehow separate or different than consciousness?

I don't normally use those same terms, which is why I asked the questions as a baseline for the discussion. In particular, many people have a varied view on awareness as compared with consciousness. But, to answer your questions (and try to keep it simple), I would say that my overall view of it all is what I posted in the recent TTC thread.

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/43175-ddj-meaning-chapter-1/?p=733195

 

Specifically, I would say that consciousness is the "one" that emerges from the Dao. And that consciousness = oneness, or oneness is awareness of all of consciousness. Awareness itself is the nature of emergence "from the Dao", or basically what it means to emerge. With awareness kind of like a relative perception, based upon ones level of clarity in consciousness. Another way to say that would be the Kashmir Shaivite concept that we are (or can become) Shiva itself, as Shiva would be the full realization (or oneness) of consciousness. But, I would not say that consciousness is a fixed "thing". More like a sentient being is a bubbling up (or emergence of awareness) into kind of a shared space.

[Jeff]

Of course we let go. But I think the "letting go" part is sort of tricky and some conditions need to arise (within the human mind-body construct) that'll trigger the releasing.

 

All I'm saying is, there might be something to the "expand anger to till it disappears" perspective. Would I do it? No. I'll probably get a heart attack and die...but then that could be considered a "realization" part...

I get it. And my point is that it would be more expand anger until you hopefully realize the futility of it and ultimately just let it go. Infinite anger doesn't transform into anything good, just like infinite glutteny just makes you so fat it kills you. It is the realization of the futility of such emotions and desires where good things start to happen.

[Jeff]

A lot here in my attempt to define terms...

 

Understood. But have you considered that, as a means to realization, negation in practice can be as 100% yang as it is yin?

 

By what standard of measure is effectiveness to be gauged? By the quality of experience, the sensation of freedom, its duration? What can be said of efforts once experience comes, and then goes? How much pain and suffering must one deliberately cause before the entire world is seen to be a mere stage of characters? How much ignorance to adhere to before knowledge illuminates? What was offered was that freedom from all experience can be none other than freedom itself. Only then can one be free to truly experience.

 

After all, how can a non-existent "I" long for the fulfillment of a non-existent "realization"? All methodologies really are seen to be comical when reduced to what one truly is. I'm certain a fair amount of sages/seers/realized souls would be in agreement that all this is merely entertainment.

 

Concentrated earnestness for and 'attainment' of realization may indeed come about through either introspection or extroversion, but can also arise spontaneously without any apparent cause. Such is this grand play of consciousness showcasing its infinite forms. Therefore ultimately, there is no path, or method or way. You are It, without a You to be It. Words cannot describe it. It can be as much fun pretending to be the villain as it is pretending anything can accelerate the process. There is no process.

 

One can appear to dive headlong into the unknown, while another may appear to be dragged there kicking and screaming. We all appear to only do as we are led. Who is the doer? One way or another, we all end up passing through that non-existent doorway none have ever passed through.

 

 

1) Yes, nothing exists apart. As that which consciousness appears upon, you are beyond the notions of duality(and non-duality).

 

2) Yes, oneness is the realization of Self(or self-awareness) as the 'pure-objectless-consciousness', the ground of being.

 

3) No. As awareness, 'I am', but there is no 'I am -- this or that'.

I suppose the only exceptions to this would be : 'I am everything' or, 'I am nothing'.

Thanks for your responses. You raise many questions...

 

Are you saying that you believe that endless negation will lead to realization? (I would agree that is logically equivalent to infinite anger.)

 

You raise very good questions regarding effectiveness and kind of what is the "goal". I was just assuming that we were using the post in the OP as the basis of discussion. As I stated in my early posts, I am just saying that the guru's approach/view is different than in many traditions. Just kind of flushing out what the differences are.

 

In general, I would say that if there is a duration to the sense of freedom, then there is not really freedom. Just some temporary state.

 

Is oneness to you only the realization of the pure stuff? Or would it also be the realization of all layers (and aspects) of consciousness? Like if you realize Oneness, do you get all of the Shiva like powers with it?

 

Finally, I would say that I am everything and I am nothing are two sides of the same coin.

[neti neti]

A lot here in my attempt to define terms...

 

 

Thanks for your responses. You raise many questions...

 

1) Are you saying that you believe that endless negation will lead to realization? (I would agree that is logically equivalent to infinite anger.)

 

2) You raise very good questions regarding effectiveness and kind of what is the "goal". I was just assuming that we were using the post in the OP as the basis of discussion. As I stated in my early posts, I am just saying that the guru's approach/view is different than in many traditions. Just kind of flushing out what the differences are.

 

a) In general, I would say that if there is a duration to the sense of freedom, then there is not really freedom. Just some temporary state.

 

3) Is oneness to you only the realization of the pure stuff? Or would it also be the realization of all layers (and aspects) of consciousness? Like if you realize Oneness, do you get all of the Shiva like powers with it?

 

4) Finally, I would say that I am everything and I am nothing are two sides of the same coin.

Oh no. I insist, thank you for drawing them out!

 

1) At its essence I suppose any practice can become a process of elimination. Negation seems to be most direct, but not without end.

 

"I am nothing perceivable or conceivable. All perceivables or conceivables are to be discarded as "not this, not this", until the negator too is discarded or negated." ~Nisargadatta Maharaj

 

2) I believe I touched on the approach in question as best I could. Apologies if it seems I've gone off the rail.

a) Agreed!

 

3) I've had some pretty outrageous perceptual anomalies, but then... have I really? They don't seem relevant... if power is expressed it seems to be expressed on my behalf. Besides, I can't really speak to the miraculous as I'm thoroughly convinced of this universe's illusory nature. I'm finding it nearly impossible to lay claim to anything, let alone experiences seeming to have no substance in light of the Supreme... Does an inability to think no matter how hard I try count?

 

4) Indeed!

[Jeff]

Oh no. I insist, thank you for drawing them out!

 

1) At its essence I suppose any practice can become a process of elimination. Negation seems to be most direct, but not without end.

 

"I am nothing perceivable or conceivable. All perceivables or conceivables are to be discarded as "not this, not this", until the negator too is discarded or negated." ~Nisargadatta Maharaj

 

2) I believe I touched on the approach in question as best I could. Apologies if it seems I've gone off the rail.

a) Agreed!

 

3) I've had some pretty outrageous perceptual anomalies, but then... have I really? They don't seem relevant... if power is expressed it seems to be expressed on my behalf. Besides, I can't really speak to the miraculous as I'm thoroughly convinced of this universe's illusory nature. I'm finding it nearly impossible to lay claim to anything, let alone experiences seeming to have no substance in light of the Supreme... Does an inability to think no matter how hard I try count?

 

4) Indeed!

Thank you very much for the discussion. Nice that we can debate various points.

 

Your quote (and point) on 1) sort of drops us back to my earlier point describing the fundamental disagreement with various traditions. I mean no disrespect, but if you remember my Zen parable about seeing the mountain, then not seeing it, then seeing it again, your quote in those related traditions would go with the "not seeing it phase". Showing again the difference of views.

 

On your example in 3), while I agree there are states where the energy flow feels so great that it overwhelms the ability of the conscious mind to be able to think (or imagine things), that is not what I meant, by the realization of Shiva. I meant conscious control. The mind is naturally quiet (or resides), but you can think whenever you want.

 

Abhinavagupta (the great Kashmir Shaivite sage) states...

 

"Without conscious apprehension, even if a thing exists, it is as if it did not exist..."

 

He goes on to say...

 

"The question is thus appropriate because contentment (enlightenment) is not possible without a conscious realization. Contentment is of two kinds. The first is effected by means of absorption (samavesa) and consists of magical powers. The second is attained by reaching a condition of conscious heart-felt realization, and it is the state of being liberated while still alive."

 

Or you could say by our agreement on 4), you need both sides of the coin. With the "I am everything" side of the coin comes the "magical powers".

[neti neti]

On 1/26/2017 at 10:44 PM, Jeff said:

Thank you very much for the discussion. Nice that we can debate various points.

 

1) Your quote (and point) on 1) sort of drops us back to my earlier point describing the fundamental disagreement with various traditions. I mean no disrespect, but if you remember my Zen parable about seeing the mountain, then not seeing it, then seeing it again, your quote in those related traditions would go with the "not seeing it phase". Showing again the difference of views.

 

2) On your example in 3), while I agree there are states where the energy flow feels so great that it overwhelms the ability of the conscious mind to be able to think (or imagine things), that is not what I meant, by the realization of Shiva. I meant conscious control. The mind is naturally quiet (or resides), but you can think whenever you want.

 

 Abhinavagupta (the great Kashmir Shaivite sage) states...

 

 a) "Without conscious apprehension, even if a thing exists, it is as if it did not exist..."

 

He goes on to say...

 

"The question is thus appropriate because contentment (enlightenment) is not possible without a conscious realization. Contentment is of two kinds. The first is effected by means of absorption (samavesa) and consists of magical powers. The second is attained by reaching a condition of conscious heart-felt realization, and it is the state of being liberated while still alive."

 

3) Or you could say by our agreement on 4), you need both sides of the coin. With the "I am everything" side of the coin comes the "magical powers".

 

1) None taken. I was drawn to jnana yoga and the simplicity of negation as a technique, but I'm not partial to any particular tradition or lineage. All have their place. All is as it must be.

 

The comparison is inaccurate. There were never any mountains. What's presented as a phase of "not seeing" in the Zen parable still requires a know-er knowing that it's not seeing. Another "I"-dependent knower-self.

 

This isn't the equivalent of what's been illustrated thus far as, the final stop... once the seer falls away, seeing just happens. Perception appears, with no apparent perceptual apparatus. The perceiver is non-existent, attribute-less, indescribable. Moreover, the presumed "return to ordinary life" whereby mountains are again seen still implies that a seer remains. In sharp contrast... as the Absolute, you are life itself.

 

2) It's a subtle nuance. There are no states, because states must be perceived. I believe Siddharameshwar coined the phrase, stateless state. There are no thoughts, as there is no thinker. Thoughts arise and subside like foam on the ocean of consciousness, but really, there is no mind. In this state, consciousness happens to you.There is no consciousness.

 

That which is beyond mind, Parashiva or Nirguna Brahman, is even unaware of itself. It is the unborn, inexhaustible spring from which all energies burst forth. If everything is you, what does being conscious even mean and, what is there to control? Who is there to be enlightened, when you already are the essence of happiness? The pointers are of course valid but one must realize they are conveyed such that they may be conceptualized, one step removed from the summit.

 

When the world, as projected by the light of Self, is realized to be within you... indeed, it could appear as if one's will is universally unassailable. I've had a glimpse, and yet I'm inclined to be wary of it. Maya and all therein made to bend to your wishes or, the entire creation rearranged at your glance is a bit overwhelming, and far too enticing. Even in having "become the goal", it's seemingly effortless to miss the fact that the totality of this phenomenal universe on display is my own doing, (which is quite "magical" enough to say the least). With this in view, I believe focusing one's awareness to produce miraculous manifestations can become a snare. Another experience... another state. Pitfalls in the mire of my own delusions. Indeed, the Sutras subtly warn of this.

 

Shiva Sutras

1.21. śuddhavidyodyāccakreśatva-siddhiḥ

(When this yogī does not desire limited powers and is eager to attain the knowledge of universal being then) . . . pure knowledge rises and by that knowledge he becomes the master of the universal wheel.

 

a) My sentiments exactly.

 

3) Agreed, as one cannot be without the other.

Edited August 24, 2020 by neti neti

[Jeff]

1) None taken. I was drawn to jnana yoga and the simplicity of negation as a technique, but I'm not partial to any particular tradition or lineage. All have their place. All is as it must be.

 

The comparison is inaccurate. There were never any mountains. What's presented as a phase of "not seeing" in the Zen parable still requires a know-er knowing that it's not seeing. Another "I"-dependent knower-self.

 

This isn't the equivalent of what's been illustrated thus far as, the final stop... once the seer falls away, seeing just happens. Perception appears, with no apparent perceptual apparatus. The perceiver is non-existent, attribute-less, indescribable. Moreover, the presumed "return to ordinary life" whereby mountains are again seen still implies that a seer remains. In sharp contrast... as the Absolute, you are life itself.

 

2) It's a subtle nuance. There are no states, because states must be perceived. I believe Siddharameshwar coined the phrase, stateless state. There are no thoughts, as there is no thinker. Thoughts arise and subside like foam on the ocean of consciousness, but really, there is no mind. In this state, consciousness happens to you.There is no consciousness.

 

That which is beyond mind, Parashiva or Nirguna Brahman, is even unaware of itself. It is the unborn, inexhaustible spring from which all energies burst forth. If everything is you, what does being conscious even mean and, what is there to control? Who is there to be enlightened, when you already are the essence of happiness? The pointers are of course valid but one must realize they are conveyed as such in order that they can be conceptualized, one step removed from the summit.

 

When the world, as projected by the light of Self, is realized to be within you... indeed, it could appear as if one's will is universally unassailable. I've had a glimpse, and yet I'm inclined to be wary of it. Maya and all therein made to bend to your wishes or, the entire creation rearranged at your glance is a bit overwhelming, and far too enticing. Even in having "become the goal", it's seemingly effortless to miss the fact that the totality of this phenomenal universe on display is my own doing, (which is quite "magical" enough to say the least). With this in view, I believe focusing one's awareness to produce miraculous manifestations can become a snare. Another experience... another state. Pitfalls in the mire of my own delusions. Indeed, the Sutras subtly warn of this.

 

Shiva Sutras

1.21. śuddhavidyodyāccakreśatva-siddhiḥ

(When this yogī does not desire limited powers and is eager to attain the knowledge of universal being then) . . . pure knowledge rises and by that knowledge he becomes the master of the universal wheel.

 

a) My sentiments exactly.

 

3) Agreed, as one cannot be without the other.

I think we may have some difference of view shown by your interpretation of the Shiva Sutras quote 1.21. The statement is that the desire for power is a problem, not that one who realizes does not have or get powers. This point is shown in these verses...

 

3.41. tadārūḍhapramitestatkṣayājjīva saṁkṣayaḥ

All desire vanishes in that fortunate person whose consciousness is established in his own real nature. For him the state of being a limited individual has ended.

3.42. bhūtakañcukī tadā vimukto bhūyaḥ patisamaḥ paraḥ

For him, the five elements are only coverings. At that very moment, he is absolutely liberated, supreme and just like Śiva.

 

So maybe we can agree first on the point that all personal (sense of self) desires drop?

 

Then 3.17 states...

 

3.17. svamātrānirmāṇamāpādayati

Experiencing that this objective world is the product of his subjective consciousness, he can create anything he desires.

 

Also...

 

3.28. dānamātmajñānam

His only purpose for remaining in his body is to impart knowledge to others.

3.29. yo’vipastho jñāhetuśca

The one who rules the wheel of energies becomes the cause of inserting knowledge in others.

3.30. śvaśaktipracayo’sya viśvam

For him, this universe is the embodiment of his collective energies.

3.31. sthitilayau

This universe is the expansion of his energy in objective impressions and in the dissolution of those impressions.

3.32. tatpravṛittāvapyanirāsaḥ saṁvettṛibhāvāt

Although he is determined in creating, protecting and destroying the universe, even then he is not separated from the real state of his subjectivity.

 

All of which seems to agree with my earlier Ahbinagupta quote regarding the two sides of the coin. He is determined (or conscious of) his actions.

[neti neti]

I think we may have some difference of view shown by your interpretation of the Shiva Sutras quote 1.21. The statement is that the desire for power is a problem, not that one who realizes does not have or get powers. This point is shown in these verses...

 

3.41. tadārūḍhapramitestatkṣayājjīva saṁkṣayaḥ

All desire vanishes in that fortunate person whose consciousness is established in his own real nature. For him the state of being a limited individual has ended.

3.42. bhūtakañcukī tadā vimukto bhūyaḥ patisamaḥ paraḥ

For him, the five elements are only coverings. At that very moment, he is absolutely liberated, supreme and just like Śiva.

 

So maybe we can agree first on the point that all personal (sense of self) desires drop?

 

 

Of course. Without a personal sense of self, how can there be desires to identify with? That is also there.

 

But I'm sure you see the statement's admonitory aspect. And let's not dismiss the clear qualifier of said powers being, limited.

 

 

Then 3.17 states...

 

3.17. svamātrānirmāṇamāpādayati

Experiencing that this objective world is the product of his subjective consciousness, he can create anything he desires.

 

Also...

 

3.28. dānamātmajñānam

His only purpose for remaining in his body is to impart knowledge to others.

3.29. yo’vipastho jñāhetuśca

The one who rules the wheel of energies becomes the cause of inserting knowledge in others.

3.30. śvaśaktipracayo’sya viśvam

For him, this universe is the embodiment of his collective energies.

3.31. sthitilayau

This universe is the expansion of his energy in objective impressions and in the dissolution of those impressions.

3.32. tatpravṛittāvapyanirāsaḥ saṁvettṛibhāvāt

Although he is determined in creating, protecting and destroying the universe, even then he is not separated from the real state of his subjectivity.

 

All of which seems to agree with my earlier Ahbinagupta quote regarding the two sides of the coin. He is determined (or conscious of) his actions.

 

As ruler of the wheel of energies, vibrations of movement within consciousness occur as they must, whether creating preserving or destroying. The Lord does as He must. Waves rise, waves crash. The ocean stills. It all just happens to Him. Reflections of His Divine playful nature, which is just another anthropomorphism.

 

'Will' does not exist prior to the word... an assumption after the fact. Timelessness is devoid of linearity. If you would, please address at least one question I've posed if you wish to continue along these lines.

 

"If everything is you, what does being conscious even mean and, what is there to control?"

[Jeff]

Of course. Without a personal sense of self, how can there be desires to identify with? That is also there.

 

But I'm sure you see the statement's admonitory aspect. And let's not dismiss the clear qualifier of said powers being, limited.

 

As ruler of the wheel of energies, vibrations of movement within consciousness occur as they must, whether creating preserving or destroying. The Lord does as He must. Waves rise, waves crash. The ocean stills. It all just happens to Him. Reflections of His Divine playful nature, which is just another anthropomorphism.

 

'Will' does not exist prior to the word... an assumption after the fact. Timelessness is devoid of linearity. If you would, please address at least one question I've posed if you wish to continue along these lines.

 

"If everything is you, what does being conscious even mean and, what is there to control?"

Thank you for discussion, but maybe I am missing your point. First of all, yes, limited powers based upon personal desires. Basically if you "want" a super power, you don't get a super power. Because the desire for a Shiva super power keeps you separate from realizing (becoming) Shiva. Agreed?

 

The point of maintaining being conscious of it is to help the sentient beings (same as why Buddhas do what they do), I thought that point was clear with...

 

3.28. dānamātmajñānam

His only purpose for remaining in his body is to impart knowledge to others.

3.29. yo’vipastho jñāhetuśca

The one who rules the wheel of energies becomes the cause of inserting knowledge in others.

 

So basically he just sticks around to change a few things to help others (becomes the cause of inserting knowledge). This is basically the same as found in end of chapter 28 of the TTC,,,

 

Being the valley of the universe,

Ever true and resourceful,

Return to the state of the uncarved block.

When the block is carved, it becomes useful.

When the sage uses it, he becomes the ruler.

Thus, "A great tailor cuts little."

 

The "becoming useful" with little tailor cutting (changes using the power) is to help people realize.

[neti neti]

Thank you for discussion, but maybe I am missing your point. First of all, yes, limited powers based upon personal desires. Basically if you "want" a super power, you don't get a super power. Because the desire for a Shiva super power keeps you separate from realizing (becoming) Shiva. Agreed?

 

Sure. But superpowers from whose perspective? The non-existent yogi or the Lord of the Universe?

 

The point of maintaining being conscious of it is to help the sentient beings (same as why Buddhas do what they do), I thought that point was clear with...

 

3.28. dānamātmajñānam

His only purpose for remaining in his body is to impart knowledge to others.

3.29. yo’vipastho jñāhetuśca

The one who rules the wheel of energies becomes the cause of inserting knowledge in others.

 

So basically he just sticks around to change a few things to help others (becomes the cause of inserting knowledge). This is basically the same as found in end of chapter 28 of the TTC,,,

 

Being the valley of the universe,

Ever true and resourceful,

Return to the state of the uncarved block.

When the block is carved, it becomes useful.

When the sage uses it, he becomes the ruler.

Thus, "A great tailor cuts little."

 

The "becoming useful" with little tailor cutting (changes using the power) is to help people realize.

 

Only due to the unbridled bliss of Self-abidance. If the yogi can be seen to be conscious of anything it is only of Himself as Shiva, as all which appears to manifest before him is none other than that Supreme Consciousness. Only Himself. How can one such as this not impart knowledge to "others"? What "power" must he exercise to do so? Is it not by simply being that "powers" are expressed? Isn't the notion of the "focusing yogi" imagining he is "exercising powers" ludicrous when considered beside the reality of being Shiva? Do you not see how the subtle dualism is maintained enabling illusion to persist?

 

Maybe you should read my previous responses a bit more carefully... or not.

 

Either way, I'll play along.

 

 

Consider Jaideva Singh's translation regarding the 7th Sutra:

1.07.  jāgratsvapnasuṣuptabhede turyābhogasaṁbhavaḥ

Such a heroic yogi experiences the expansive state of turya in the differentiated states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep.

 

"In Candrajnana also it has been shown in the following verse that the rapturous experience of I-consciousness of the fourth state is present in the case of the great Yogi in waking state etc.

 

"As the moon pure like a flower shines all round and by the assemblage of its gladdening rays gladdens the world in a trice, even so, oh goddess, (addressed to Parvati), a great Yogi, when he moves about in the world, gladdens all round with the rays of his moon-like spiritual awareness the entire variegated world from avici (a particular hell) up to Siva."

 

 

This one is pretty self-explanatory:

 

1.18.  lokānandaḥ samādhisukham

The joy of his mystical trance (samādhi) is bliss for the whole universe.

 

"Moreover, the delight of knowership which the yogi experiences by continuous repose and delight within himself ends in making his delight manifest among those people also who carefully observe him in that state (tat tadrsam)."

 

I don't see anything about conscious effort here. Even if perceived to be momentary, this direct experience of the turya state is impossible to come back from the same. That yogi is no longer a person. He has literally been dissolved as a drop in the ocean, for he has realized that the drop never existed apart from the ocean. Even the idea of self-abidance is inaccurate, for there is no-where else to abide!

Edited January 28, 2017 by neti neti

[neti neti]

When "others" sincerely seek help in the form of a "gateway to limitless being", rest assured that the gateway shall find them. How could it not? The gateway is them. They help themselves.

 

There is no them. There is no gateway.

[Jonesboy]

When "others" sincerely seek help in the form of a "gateway to limitless being", rest assured that the gateway shall find them. How could it not? The gateway is them. They help themselves.

 

There is no them. There is no gateway.

Only for the one that is like Siva.

 

Yet that being maybe married, like to have debates like the Buddha did for instance.

 

Surely such a being isn't demented and just talking to himself with all that oneness.

 

The key is one can become one like Siva, not cease into Siva... if one can become like Siva that others can become like Siva. If others can become one like Siva then one can help others move along the path.

 

While the ultimate truth may be we are each one like Siva, that realization is obscured.

 

A guru, a master of the energies is one that can help remove those obstructions which can seem like inserting knowledge. He does so because he has realized oneness and it is that sharing of his presence his being that does the work.

 

To never look outside yourself for help or assistance is an obstruction in itself.

[Jeff]

Sure. But superpowers from whose perspective? The non-existent yogi or the Lord of the Universe?

 

Only due to the unbridled bliss of Self-abidance. If the yogi can be seen to be conscious of anything it is only of Himself as Shiva, as all which appears to manifest before him is none other that Supreme Consciousness. Only Himself. How can one such as this not impart knowledge to "others"? What "power" must he exercise to do so? Is it not by simply being that "powers" are expressed? Isn't the notion of the "focusing yogi" imagining he is "exercising powers" ludicrous when considered beside the reality of being Shiva? Do you not see how the subtle dualism is maintained enabling illusion to persist?

 

Maybe you should read my previous responses a bit more carefully... or not.

 

Either way, I'll play along.

 

Consider Jaideva Singh's translation regarding the 7th Sutra:

 

This one is pretty self-explanatory:

 

I don't see anything about conscious effort here. Even if perceived to be momentary, this direct experience of the turya state is impossible to come back from the same. That yogi is no longer a person. He has literally been dissolved as a drop in the ocean, for he has realized that the drop never existed apart from the ocean. Even the idea of self-abidance is inaccurate, for there is no-where else to abide!

We seem to just disagree, or maybe I am getting lost in the back and forth...

 

With the superpowers comment, it was obviously meant that it is viewed as a superpower from the perspective of the "limited self". And I was stating that the desires of the limited self, keeps one the limited self and hence one does not realize Shiva.

 

If one is Shiva, then they are "everything". If everything is now your body, can one not move your own hand?

 

Also, if one is Shiva, do you not think that such a being also knows that there are sentient beings that do not know they are Shiva? And is this point not specifically shown by 3.28?

 

3.28. dānamātmajñānam

His only purpose for remaining in his body is to impart knowledge to others.

 

I would agree that 1.18 makes know real specific comment about conscious effort, but let's look at specifically comes right after that in context...

 

1.18. lokānandaḥ samādhisukham

The joy of his mystical trance (samādhi) is bliss for the whole universe.

 

1.19. śaktisandhāne śarīrotpattiḥ

By infusing his energy of will the embodiment of that which is willed occurs at once.

 

1.20. bhūtasaṁdhāna-bhūtapṛithaktva-
viśvasaṁghaṭṭāḥ

By the greatness of this achievement of the energy of will the yogī can focus his awareness and heal the sick and suffering, separate elements from his body and be free from the limitations of space and time.

 

Do not 1.19 and 1.20 directly again support my point?

 

Finally, it seems like our entire difference in views can be simplified down to my earlier quote from Ahbinagupta....

 

"The question is thus appropriate because contentment (enlightenment) is not possible without a conscious realization. Contentment is of two kinds. The first is effected by means of absorption (samavesa) and consists of magical powers. The second is attained by reaching a condition of conscious heart-felt realization, and it is the state of being liberated while still alive."

 

I take it that you disagree with Ahbinagupta in the above quote?

[neti neti]

Only for the one that is like Siva.

 

Yet that being maybe married, like to have debates like the Buddha did for instance.

 

Surely such a being isn't demented and just talking to himself with all that oneness.

 

There is only Shiva, which is consciousness. It's the jiva clinging to self-imposed ideas of a 'personal self', 'body', or the "I" who believes he retains independent existence to be like Shiva. Delusions that he still moves acts or speaks within this existential mirage.

 

Surely he is non-existent and has realized it only in seeing nothing but himself.

 

He is not the jiva, He witnesses the jiva as consciousness(which is only Himself), and yet, it is not Him.

 

He is not the body, He witnesses the body as a form of consciousness moving acting or speaking within the consciousness(which is only Himself), and yet, it is not Him.

 

He is not the "I", He is the backdrop in which 'Supreme I' enables apparent manifested multiplicity within the consciousness(which is only Himself), and yet, it is not Him.

 

 

The key is one can become one like Siva, not cease into Siva... if one can become like Siva that others can become like Siva. If others can become one like Siva then one can help others move along the path.

 

For the playful role of "returning to the world", the Bodhisattva only appears to maintain individuality, and yet, He knows he is not the person. Christ proclaimed that He only "did as He saw His Father doing", which was only Himself. There is no individual helping, there are no others, there is no path.

 

1.01.  caitanyamātmā

Supreme consciousness is the reality of everything.

1.02.  jñānaṁ bandhaḥ

Knowing differentiatedly is bondage and not knowing undifferentiatedly is bondage.

 

 

While the ultimate truth may be we are each one like Siva, that realization is obscured.

 

 

A guru, a master of the energies is one that can help remove those obstructions which can seem like inserting knowledge. He does so because he has realized oneness and it is that sharing of his presence his being that does the work.

 

To never look outside yourself for help or assistance is an obstruction in itself.

 

There is no guru or master apart from yourself. A non-existent master cannot help remove non-existent obstructions. He appears to do so for the sake of the show, and actors desiring to play roles they imagine themselves to be. His presence, is your presence. There is no presence. There is no show.

 

Remaining attached to the symbolic realm of words, illusory concepts of within or without, may be the most binding obstruction of all.

Edited January 28, 2017 by neti neti

[neti neti]

On 1/28/2017 at 9:30 AM, Jeff said:

We seem to just disagree, or maybe I am getting lost in the back and forth...

 

With the superpowers comment, it was obviously meant that it is viewed as a superpower from the perspective of the "limited self". And I was stating that the desires of the limited self, keeps one the limited self and hence one does not realize Shiva.

 

If one is Shiva, then they are "everything". If everything is now your body, can one not move your own hand?

 

Even as Shiva, the body simply moves. Shiva does not move the body. He is the ground upon which "power" manifests.

 

The jiva ignorantly assumes he moves the hand. When you move your hand, you don't think about moving it, and then move it. It simply happens. For the sake of communication, one could say it is "subconsciously" asked to be moved, and is then moved for you. Such is the illusion of free will. Your reasoning is a justification for what has already occurred. Time is an illusion. You are an illusion. Beware of Maya.

 

Quote

 

Also, if one is Shiva, do you not think that such a being also knows that there are sentient beings that do not know they are Shiva? And is this point not specifically shown by 3.28?

 

3.28. dānamātmajñānam

His only purpose for remaining in his body is to impart knowledge to others.

 

I would agree that 1.18 makes know real specific comment about conscious effort, but let's look at specifically comes right after that in context...

 

1.18. lokānandaḥ samādhisukham

The joy of his mystical trance (samādhi) is bliss for the whole universe.

 

1.19. śaktisandhāne śarīrotpattiḥ

By infusing his energy of will the embodiment of that which is willed occurs at once.

 

1.20. bhūtasaṁdhāna-bhūtapṛithaktva-
viśvasaṁghaṭṭāḥ

By the greatness of this achievement of the energy of will the yogī can focus his awareness and heal the sick and suffering, separate elements from his body and be free from the limitations of space and time.

 

Do not 1.19 and 1.20 directly again support my point?

 

Finally, it seems like our entire difference in views can be simplified down to my earlier quote from Ahbinagupta....

 

"The question is thus appropriate because contentment (enlightenment) is not possible without a conscious realization. Contentment is of two kinds. The first is effected by means of absorption (samavesa) and consists of magical powers. The second is attained by reaching a condition of conscious heart-felt realization, and it is the state of being liberated while still alive."

 

I take it that you disagree with Ahbinagupta in the above quote?

 

"That which is beyond mind, Parashiva or Nirguna Brahman, is even unaware of itself. It is the unborn, inexhaustible spring from which all energies burst forth. If everything is you, what does being conscious even mean and, what is there to control? Who is there to be enlightened, when you already are the essence of happiness? The pointers are of course valid but one must realize they are conveyed as such that they may be conceptualized, one step removed from the summit."

Edited October 14, 2020 by neti neti